Elastic response of trabecular bone under compression calculated using the firm and floppy boundary lattice element method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micro-Finite Element analysis (μFEA) has become widely used in biomechanical research as a reliable tool for the prediction of bone mechanical properties within its microstructure such as apparent elastic modulus and strength. However, this method requires substantial computational resources and processing time. Here, we propose a computationally efficient alternative to FEA that can provide an accurate estimation of bone trabecular mechanical properties in a fast and quantitative way. A lattice element method (LEM) framework based on the Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) open-source software package is employed to calculate the elastic response of trabecular bone cores. A novel procedure to handle pore-material boundaries is presented, referred to as the Firm and Floppy Boundary LEM (FFB-LEM). Our FFB-LEM calculations are compared to voxel- and geometry-based FEA benchmarks incorporating bovine and human trabecular bone cores imaged by micro Computed Tomography (μCT). Using 14 computer cores, the apparent elastic modulus calculation of a trabecular bone core from a μCT-based input with FFB-LEM required about 15 min, including conversion of the μCT data into a LAMMPS input file. In contrast, the FEA calculations on the same system including the mesh generation, required approximately 30 and 50 min for voxel- and geometry-based FEA, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between FFB-LEM and voxel- or geometry-based FEA apparent elastic moduli (+24.3% or +7.41%, and +0.630% or -5.29% differences for bovine and human samples, respectively).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".